The conservative definition of a “crisis” is curious

Remember that meme you made about not putting people into boxes?

Yeah...might want to take your own advice there...

Sheesh, untangling that clever barb is going to take a few paragraphs.

As quickly as I can — my characterization of conservative thought here is based directly upon the rhetoric that has come from the hardcore right as I’ve seen it repeated over and over again in memes on Imgflip, conservative TV and radio pundits, Donald Trump himself, etc etc..

Last year, Covid which caused the biggest loss of American life in a century wasn’t a big deal. This year, paying $50 at the pump instead of $40 is. What changed? Only the Party of the current U.S. President.

I’m calling them out on that bait-and-switch.

The comment you’re referring to was in connection with a meme that featured Orthodox rabbis advocating for Palestine, which is something you wouldn’t necessarily expect. That’s why I said don’t put them into boxes.

If a conservative wants to explain to me, using conservative logic, why Covid was a catastrophe and the gas price rises we’ve seen more recently aren’t so bad in comparison, I’m happy to hear them out.

The issue though is you're using the hardcore right to paint all conservatives, no matter how moderate, with a sweeping brush. Not all of us have tried to downplay COVID in any way...we've just argued that the response wasn't necessarily the best (be it too much or too little, at varying points along the timespan of last year).

I'll gladly join you in (and indeed have been for over a year now) calling out any who attempt to downplay this pandemic's impact upon our lives...I'm simply miffed that more moderate conservatives like myself get thrown in with people further down the right-end of the spectrum. Sure, I'm annoyed that our policies on energy and cybersecurity both failed to the point that gas prices are rising, and I'll absolutely rail against it, but (at the risk of using the Anecdotal Evidence Fallacy) that in no way means all of us conservatives value human life less than a few cents at the pump.

That said, the threat of COVID is largely on the way out here in the U.S, whereas this energy issue is new. Crises, like celebrity news, are only interesting until something new appears to capture the attention of the masses. #FarRightLogicIGuess

I want the GOP to be a sane, reality-based party. Really, I do. If you asked Joe Biden, he wants it, too. He recently said point-blank that he wants the Republicans to get their act together because America cannot function as a one-party state.

So I’ve been watching post-election developments in the Republican Party closely. Historically, parties turn rabidly on a presidential candidate who fails to win the election. Certainly, that happened with the Democrats in ‘16.

But the GOP has been doubling down on Trump’s self-serving lies about the election outcome and defenestrating even leaders like Liz Cheney who uphold conservative values in every other respect except kneeling and kissing Donald Trump’s ring.

It might be different come 2024 — I really don’t think Trump has it in him to run again — but for now, the entire party assumes he will and wants to anoint him.

I know, right? I was flabbergasted when Kamala was chosen for veep. Tulsi had spanked her out of the running when the candidate pool was still in the double digits. Trump got more votes than Obama and Biden still beat him. Can Kamala do the same?

Tulsi was a protest vote; a weirdo out-of-step with the modern Democratic Party. That’s why she’s attracted such attention on the Right, but no, she never had a prayer of being VP.

I could run through the reasons why, but they’re summed up by the fact she voted “present” on the impeachment of Trump (first time) and then thought it was a good idea to sue Hillary Clinton for defamation smack dab in the middle of Trump’s first impeachment.

If she’s not actually a bought-and-paid-for Russian plant, she sure acts like one

I didn't say that Tulsi would be my choice. I didn't say Tulsi is any good. I didn't say she would stand a chance against Trump. I remarked that Kamala was given a whuppin' by Tulsi in the debates and left the nomination process at a time when there were still double digits of better candidates than Kamala in the running. I think Kamala is Trump's best hope for re-election.

Eh, she's just a very moderate Democrat in a party that's very much taking a dive off the left end of the pool. It put her in a weird spot, but I was really hoping she'd be VP. Her vote for being present wasn't pro-Russian in any way, it was likely a political move to preserve the positive support she'd garnered both on the right and left...and anyone who sues a Clinton goes up in my book, haha.

Clinton’s Russian plant barb against Gabbard may have been rude, it may have been politically inconvenient for Gabbard, it may not even be true — but was it defamation?

No. It wasn’t. The First Amendment’s free speech protections are at their broadest when it comes to elected officials. If the law prohibits us from speaking our minds about public officials, then we don’t live in much of a free country anymore.

So, Gabbard loses major points in my book for her attempt to undermine the First Amendment and for the awkward and brain-dead timing of that lawsuit, evidencing beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is no team player for Democrats and that she’d rather create clickbait headlines for the alt-right at a moment the nation’s attention should have been squarely focused on the conduct of the President.

Defamation is a crime because it spreads falsities about someone for personal gain...Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but Clinton said enough that could be reasonably construed as a falsity to justify the lawsuit, correct? I'd be infuriated enough to file such a suit if false and hurtful allegations were levelled at me purely because someone wanted to set my aspirations back.

Believe me, I absolutely support freedom of speech, even freedom of what we call 'hate speech', but the line is drawn at lying to ruin someone. It was inconvenient timing for the Democrats, yes, but the alternative would have been to essentially take the attacks while lying down, and that's not really a good way to survive in politics.

Tulsi Gabbard started the bad blood by saying rotten things about Clinton first. Clinton fired back — again, usual and expected in politics, and Gabbard should have anticipated it.

Gabbard escalated things in a major way by filing a lawsuit over it. I’ve spelled out the reasons why I think it’s frivolous — Clinton and Gabbard are both public officials. They essentially signed up to be shit-talked when they agreed to take positions that are responsible for millions of Americans’ lives. That’s the theory anyway as suggested by the Supreme Court in the case New York Times v. Sullivan.

Private parties can sue and win in defamation. Public officials have a snowball’s chance in hell, basically. Think of all the rotten things that have been said about Clinton, Obama, Trump, and Biden — all of them. A lot of it not true. But they don’t have the right to shut it down. That flies in the face of freedom of speech.

And filing bogus lawsuits against members of your own Party is not a way to survive in politics; it’s a way of handicapping your own advancement.

Very interesting court ruling about which I did not know, thanks for that!

Agreed then on your point, I wasn't in fact aware that it was so difficult for a public officeholder.

Eh, arguable. If you can use it to effectively carve the opposition out of your way it could very well bleed their followers IF you really can get them out of the picture. Otherwise yes, it does nothing but feed internal divisions.

Yeah I'm not sure what's going on either...At this point he [Trump] has not got a prayer of winning again or leading effectively purely because so much emotional and divisive baggage (for both sides) comes attached with his name. This whole schtick of 'party unity' isn't good when you're unifying behind a lost cause.